Talk:Aquos
You shouldn't edit the trivia, unless you made the MOC, which you didn't. -[[User:Pitcat|'Ad']] [[User Talk:Pitcat|'Victorium!']] 23:22, December 9, 2015 (UTC) Son of Hyperion is my brother, he was logged in and forgot to sign out. I didn't notice that I was logged in as him until I hit the post button. Also, you didn't make the MOC either. But I made Aquos, the history, backstory etc. The image, from Ben Cossy, is just that. An image. Not a MOC, that would be the entire thing, no, the appearence belongs to that of Ben Cossy, but the MOC is mine.I am The Eternal One. You cannot ever stop me. (talk) 23:30, December 9, 2015 (UTC) I thnk it depends on how you define MOC. It could just be the build, or it could encompass the character that was added separately. It depends Noticed there was a small debate/misunderstanding here. Hopefully these will clear it up: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/135/what-does-the-acronym-moc-stand-for http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MOC http://gimmelego.blogspot.com/p/lego-glossary.html What Does MOC Mean (LEGO)? I think we all know what MOC stands for and means. But, it's the definition. A MOC, in technicality, is the entire thing. Ben did not make Aquos, he made the image. Thus, the MOC is not his, although the image IS his.I am The Eternal One. You cannot ever stop me. (talk) 00:16, December 10, 2015 (UTC) I knew this response would come so I'm just gonna say something that will hopefully get the point of what everyone is trying to say across. First of all: you're not wrong. If we're going by literal terms, My Own Creation does indeed suggest the whole character and also the appearance is yours. You DID make up the name, and you DID make up the backstory. However, the problem with your argument is that the image and set was created before you added a name and backstory to it. Another problem is that everyone has a different definition of the term "MOC" than you. Which is the next point: when you say that "the MOC is mine," people, especially those who are in LEGO fandoms, will automatically think that you are claiming ownership over someone else's creation. You were also basically saying "Ben took the picture, but the guy within the picture belongs to me, both the written character and the physical set meant to represent him." According to you, Ben Cossy doesn't own the creation, he just owns the picture he took of it. Imagine fanart for instance. The characters don't belong to the artist, but the artwork certainly does. And like it or not, the creation is Ben Cossy's artwork and the image is his way of displaying it. It's the frame. Going back to what I said, I get what meaning you intended with your repsonse to everyone. That this is YOUR character so how he looks also belongs you. But it's your wrong usage of terms that is getting everyone riled up. In a community like this, "MOC" is not the term to use when talking about how you own a character. A community like this has accepted and firmly cemented that the term "MOC" refers to the design one has built, the set that they have created. When you say that the "MOC" is yours when you've also said it's not, then people will think you've outright lied and claimed the set as your own property. So, yes, the character is yours and how he looks is also yours. But the image and the creation within the image is not. They belong to Ben Cossy and no matter how hard you try to argue that "this is my creation," people won't buy it, especially when you point directly at the image and use "MOC." There's a chance that you'll just try to make a counter, but I'm sorry. Despite what the acronym stands for, it does not mean what you are trying to say it means. "The image and the MOC used to represent the character belongs to Ben Cossy." I think I've said all that's needed to be said so whatever response you make, I won't answer. -